Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spacecraft article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This   level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is absurd to equate: Spaceships and spacecraft. A spaceship is a large, elaborate, usually manned vehicle for spaceflight: e.g. the STARSHIP ENTERPRISE and the Space Shuttle ENDEAVOUR. Yes, a Big one.
A spacecraft is usually unmanned, and it is alway much smallers: e.g. a Gemini spacecraft, a Soyuz spacecraft, Voyager 1, Voyager 2, MESSENGER, a geostatationary communications satellite, right on down to somnething that only weighs 10 kg and does scientific research in LEO.
You also need to pay attention to what the Navy calls a ship and what it calls a mere "matercraft" or "aircraft'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.163.16 ( talk • contribs)

These words are all their own plurals, you you DO NOT put an "s" on them to make them plural. How simple is this? ALL of them: { aircraft, craft, lakecraft, motorcraft, rescuecraft, rivercraft, sailcraft, seacraft, spacecraft, warcraft }. This is not thermonuclear physics. This is just like don't put an "s" on moose and swine.
98.67.163.16 ( talk) 05:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey guys, what do you think: I noticed that the space shuttles (including Buran) are listed as "parially reusable". In the case of the US space shuttle, it forms part of the launch vehicle and new tanks and boosters are needed every time it flies. But just because it is partially reusable as a launch vehicle does it also mean that it is partially reusable as a spacecraft? And if it is, then should the Buran shuttle (a payload seperate to the Energia booster) not be called a fully reusable spacecraft? Stacked.pancakes ( talk) 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Stacked Pancakes reply

This article states that Pioneer Venus was the first "orbiter & lander" of Venus. However, the respective articles on Pioneer Venus and the Venera program show that almost all the Venera orbiters and landers arrived at Venus before Pioneer Venus. Can someone confirm this and correct the inaccurate article? -- 71.205.97.111 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply

In the Pioneer Venus program, the orbiter and the "multiprobe" that examined the atmosphere were two completely different spacecraft, and they were launched from the Earth by two completely different rockets. We have a big problem in articles about spacecraft in that people who write stuff in them that are complete bullcrap! The first spacecraft to go into orbit about Venus was indeed a Soviet one, and besides that, the first spacecraft to land on Venus was a completely-separate Soviet one that went there via a different rocket. 98.67.163.16 ( talk) 04:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

It is no excuse that going in a completely different direction, the United States sent an orbiter and a lander to Mars in 1976 Viking 1 that rode on the same Titan III Centaur rocket. Then, some weeks later on, a different Titan III Centaur rocket delivered Viking II at Mars with a different orbiter and lander combination.
By the way, the first spacecraft to go into orbit around Mars was the American Mariner 9 some years later, and the first spacecraft to land on Mars was a Soviet one. However, that landing was rather hard, and the spacecraft did not last very long. In contrast, the two Viking landers lasted for years, powered by their radioisotope electrical batteries.
98.67.163.16 ( talk) 04:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm an engineer an interested in making this page better. I figured I would put a comment here to see if others would be improving this page also. Rob 23:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC) I think the category for this article should be changed. I'm not sure to which category yet, possibly space exploration. Rob 04:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Done. Rob 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm really not sure that any of the fictional spacecraft from the "Halo: Combat Evolved" series should be listed as equally famous as either the "Millennium Falcon" from Star Wars or the "U.S.S. Enterprise" from Star Trek, because most people have heard of either of these two items but not necessarily of the Pillar of Autumn or In Amber Clad. Nevertheless, all of the above are noted as being "[s]ome of the most famous fictional spacecraft." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammargeek ( talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 26 May 2006

• I would say that the Enterprise, the Falcon, and possibly Voyager, would be sufficient. -- GW_Simulations _{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 19:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I've changed this segment and deleted the Eagle, seeing as how I'd never even heard of the show and I'm a pretty solid sci-fi buff. I substituted it for the TARDIS, which I feel is far more notable as it is the central point of the longest running sci-fi series in history. I also reworded the BattleStar Galactica part to make it clearer to the reader. I also chucked the Death Star in the Star Wars part, I think the list is sufficient now, all of those ships are famous to many people due to their prominence in franchises that have become popular for extended periods of time. -- Spoonman.au 04:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The Eagle must be on this list. It is one of the better known sci-fi spacecrafts. There are lot's of models and kits of it. And all this 30 years after Space: 1999 aired. Also, it's one of the few fictional craft that could work based on real world technology. Ricnun 14:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think so. And the merits of the ship and the series are not in question, simply the importance of this particular fictional vessel in popular culture, and I would argue this is not in the same league as the other ships on the list. -- Spoonman.au 02:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I always hear that its from the friction of air, but i've also head that the compression of air is the course, whats the truth?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.222.142 ( talk) 18:56, 22 July 2006

Vast majority is compression. WolfKeeper 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC) reply

ON: "a vehicle designed to leave Earth's atmosphere"

If an alien came to Earth in a ship, would it not be in a spacecraft? Shamess 20:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes. I see you changed it. It's more accurate now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply

ISS listed as spacecraft, and according to the article about ISS it is 213.843 kg. Shuttle is lighter, so it probably should be replaced as heaviest spacecraft. Alternatively we can break up ISS to modules, and list them individualy. I think that first is better, but I'm not sure if ISS is a haviest spacecraft itself. Hexie 22:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply

i dunno what you are saying ISS is not Mir, so i dunno what you mean by on "itself"? are you refering to the 1st module which is nothing more that a space tug to keep the US module in space, or the Zvezda (previously Mir-2).also how you list the solar panel that is not part of a module? are we going by launch or physical unit because the lab is heavier now that during lanuch and the tug is lighter... are we going by deadweigthht then... it is just hopeless if we start breaking them up and listing them without a good understanding of the variable... O_o"
Akinkhoo ( talk) 03:27 & 28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Helios I & II Solar Probes (43333399999.9999 miles per second).
  

The speed of light is approx. 186,262 miles per second !
And, sorry to be picky, but is its the speed of these spacecraft really known to an accuracy of one part in 10¹⁵ ?
Mikegm71 16:30 & 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That is truly an absurd number of digits of accruacy for the speed of anything, and it is also amazing that thousands and thousands of people have no idea how absurd numbers like that look. They are positively brain damaged, and those people have too much brain damage to round numbers off to something reasonable. You're not being picky at all, but rather you're being reasonable.
98.67.163.16 ( talk) 05:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

It is written that the fastest spacecraft is Helios I & II. But I am not so sure, as New Horizons is named the fastest spacecraft.-- Sae1962 ( talk) 11:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

A series of recent edits by User:The Yeti have reworded the lead section to generalize the subject of the article such that it includes the possibility of spacecraft which begin their voyages on the surfaces of planetary bodies other than Earth. A real-world example might be the ascent module of the Apollo Lunar Module, which could be seen as a spacecraft which was used for an orbtal spaceflight around the Moon. If inclusion of that kind of spaceflight is the intent of the recent edits, it might be better to add a single sentence covering those "return voyage" cases. But I'm dubious about the idea of expanding the lead of the article to include fictional or hypothetical spacecraft which are represented as having been, or which might someday be, launched from a planetary body other than Earth. There's nothing wrong with discussing those somewhere in the article, but shouldn't the lead really focus on the very common and well-documented case of spacecraft built by humans on Earth? ( sdsds - talk) 14:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry I disagree. The very first sentence of the article basically defines a spacecraft. "A spacecraft is a vehicle or device designed for spaceflight." There is nothing in this to say "A spacecraft is an Earth vehicle or device designed for spaceflight." There is no logical reason why spacecrafts have to be solely from Earth, just because that is the current state of our technology and/or knowledge of other life off Earth. Apart from the fact that the article actually lists fictional spacecrafts, which by definition, are lauched from / orbit non-Earth planetary bodies, it should also be noted that we have, or in the very near future will have, the technology to do so in real life. We have launched craft from the Moon, landed & launched craft from comets and asteroids, and have space missions planned to land and then launch from Mars and its moons, plus also Jupiter's moons.

Why do you think spacecraft should be narrowed solely down to existing Earth vehicles ? Why do you think the definition means that they must have their starting point as Earth ? And why must the definition be narrowed to cover 'return trips' ?

Why is a hypothetical extension of the term not acceptable ? (such as, as current space programmes envisage, craft built from materials in-part gathered from Lunar or Martian origin). Most scientist also believe that intelligent life does exist elsewhere in then universe (it is just too big to believe that we're it and there's nothing else), and some will have developed interplanetary craft - which means obviously lauching from their worlds (not Earth!). This is just a logical, and scientifically accepted credible, extension - I'm not even thinking of the fictional realms of FTL craft, bug-eyed monsters, or other science fiction. Besides, the lead paragraph is meant to be a generalisation, and only later in the page should it narrows its focus more specifically. Also I only generalised the opening paragraph (without going into any details on hypothetical or speculative craft), and left the rest of the article completely unchanged, and so no other context has been changed.
The Yeti 23:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I think as the ATV is now operational and in Orbit it should be moved to the in orbit section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.191.35 ( talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

should Mir and gang be listed as a spacecraft? i was under the assumption that a spacecraft need to be able to go some where, while the spacestation is capable of boosting itself, it is not design to travel, hence the term "craft" sound a little weird for an object designed to be stationary. should we vote on this? Akinkhoo ( talk) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I was thinking something similar and can we really list the MMU as a spacecraft?-- Craigboy ( talk) 23:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC) reply

It truly is a matter of perspective. If you catch a glimpse of the ISS as it passes overhead you will undoubtedly agree it is moving quite fast indeed! The real trouble is with the term "station" which incorrectly implies a lack of motion. We can't change that term, though, and we are thus stuck with spacecraft which are called "space stations". ( sdsds - talk) 05:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I was thinking that the SpaceX all ports forward Dragon should be in the Under Development category. Anybody disagree with that? Planet Ceres 71.158.212.128 ( talk) 20:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Never heard of it. If you have reliable sources for refs, go ahead and add it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Did it. Reliable sources on it's own page. It's amazing how many people haven't heard of it. It's the only manned spacecraft under development by a U.S. firm that would have the ability to get people to and from the space station on standard sized launch vehicles. So, when I read the article on spacecraft with absolutely no mention of one of the most important ones I guffawed a little. Planet Ceres 71.158.212.128 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Somethig should be added but im no expert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortuga135 ( talk • contribs) 08:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The article Rishabha (Jain tirthankar) links to "space vehicle" which redirects here... Is this "Space vehicle" the same as this article discribes, or is this connection inapropriate? I'm just wondering if the link on the Rishabha page should be removed... 210.185.17.159 ( talk) 06:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Of course you could ask at the talk page for that article, but the link seems reasonable. Religious and mythic stories in many traditions involve gods traveling through space using vehicles designed for the purpose. Also, see Chariots of the Gods? ( sdsds - talk) 05:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I think the article Robotic spacecraft (which is in pretty rough shape, at the moment) should be merged into this article. I don't see the benefit of have two separate articles, since the vaste majority of spacecraft are, indeed, "robotic" (including the manned ones, I might add!). Thanks, Mlm42 ( talk) 01:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, I am definitely okay with cutting down the article set we have today. And I never could understand the essential difference between robotic spacecraft and unmanned spacecraft. By definition and design, all unmanned spacecraft are robotic spacecraft, whether autonomous or telerobotically controlled, with the possible exception of a manually-controlled human-carrying spacecraft that has somehow lost its crew in space -- which might, I guess, make it an unmanned but non-robotic spacecraft. (I'm also not sure how clearly in reliably sourced information we are supporting the claims that specific spacecraft are, or are not, "space probes" and thus legitimately able to be covered in the Space probe article—but that is likely a discussion best left for another time.)

So I support the merge, but in carrying out the merge, we ought not make the claim that all spacecraft are robotic spacecraft (at least not unless we have a source for the claim), as I believe a (very) few of the early spacecraft actually did need a human to manually control (some) aspect(s?) of the spacecraft in space? Other examples that come to mind are the X-15, Spaceship One, etc. We can however just merge the meat of the robotic spacecraft article into sections in the spacecraft article on unmanned spacecraft, I would imagine. N2e ( talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Totally support I saw the article name robotic spacecraft, which is how most of the visiting spacecraft to the International Space Station are described, and I wanted to check for consistency between the way I use the phrase and how it is defined. I want to be accurate, so I'm always happy to embrace the latest thinking. I didn't see anything there at all mentioned about the ISS servicing robots at all. So I'm reading through the article, figuring what is the difference between for example a Progress supply ship and a robotic spacecraft, and there's no difference. I read every line in the article and every line from

• Many space missions are more suited to telerobotic rather than crewed operation, due to lower cost and lower risk factors.
• collecting and reporting spacecraft telemetry data (e.g. spacecraft health)
• collecting and reporting mission data (e.g. photographic images)

through to

• Soon after these first spacecraft, command systems were developed to allow remote control from the ground. Increased autonomy is important for distant probes where the light travel time prevents rapid decision and control from Earth.

It's like ticking every box, with the exception that progress doesn't goto another planet and land.

The article needs renaming to something like interplanetary space probes or merge. Penyulap _talk 03:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I think the lists of spacecraft which are currently in this article should be moved to the article List of spacecraft (which is in very bad shape, at the moment). The content in the "Spacecraft" article could then be written in prose, instead of list form. Does that sound like a good idea? Mlm42 ( talk) 17:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

"List of spacecraft" should probably just be deleted since it's not too well put together (but the formatting isn't bad) and the information not already in the "Spacecraft" article can be added to it if needed.-- Craigboy ( talk) 06:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, good call. I've redirected List of spacecraft to here. Mlm42 ( talk) 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Because of the very specialized and complex technical concepts defined by terms like spaceworthiness, airworthiness, seaworthiness and crashworthiness, I have the opinion that each of them deserve to have their own entry in Wikipedia, as is now. So, my proposal is against the mere merge of the "spaceworthiness" entry with the " spacecraft" one, but just to include some reference to "spaceworthiness" in the entry for "spacecraft". Sethemanuel ( talk) 14:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose the merge. Spaceworthiness is certainly a topic that, with support from reliable sources is worthy of its own article. More importantly, the existing Spacecraft article is in such bad shape that it has little prose describing the character and nature of spacecraft, and spaceworthiness hardly seems like the first subtopic to address until the more important items are addressed first. N2e ( talk) 19:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The Unmanned spacecraft section of the article needs expansion, and especially a good intro paragraph that describes the principal types of unmanned spacecraft. As it is today, it is largely just a very incomplete list of a few unmanned spacecraft. So let's kick around on the Talk page how we might subdivide them, and see if we might gain a consensus.

One way might be by means of spacecraft control: autonomous, vs. telerobotic/ teleoperation/teleoperated, vs. some hybrid of the both approaches (are their others?). Another way might be by mission type: space probes (currently, rather poorly defined, see above comment in the merger proposal section), communication satellites, space servicing vehicles, unmanned space stations (launched but no crew in them), etc., etc. What are other's ideas on the matter? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 19:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Let's try to keep the "Lists" in this article to a minimum. Remember that we already have the incomplete lists: List of unmanned spacecraft by program, Timeline of artificial satellites and space probes, and the ambitious Timeline of spaceflight. To try and list spacecraft here as well would not be wise (even though that is apparently what this article appears to be striving for).

What we should do instead, is to convert the "unmanned" section into prose, similar to the "manned" section. As for how to subsection the unmanned spacecraft, I'd lean toward dividing by their planned route - so either Earth orbit (low Earth orbit, geosynchronous, etc), or planetary missions (Lunar, Mars, Sun, etc); this would also naturally include whether they are designed to be returned to Earth or not (either fully or partially). This is mostly the same as usage anyway; planetary space probes, communication satellites, etc. Mlm42 ( talk) 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Does anyone see a glaring problem with this section? The scope of this article is supposed to be the actual craft themselves, but this section is written as basically a summary of the history of the manned space programs and flights, which are adequately covered in their own articles. This page needs to concentrate more on the vehicles themselves. JustinTime55 ( talk) 20:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Ya it looks like someone destroyed this article, maybe we can revert the whole thing back.-- Craigboy ( talk) 19:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I probably wrote most of the section you're talking about; previously it was just a list of spacecraft. Rather than reverting back to just a list (which is more appropriately put in a list-article), I think we should keep the prose. If you don't like the way it's written, then I suggest you be bold and reword it. Mlm42 ( talk) 05:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Removed STEREO from "earth orbit" section, because the spacecraft are in heliocentric (just like the planets!) orbits, not geocentric. Placed them in "deep space," though that's probably an exaggeration, for lack of any better classification. 2011/10/27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.118.248.43 ( talk) 18:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply

   There are a number of conventions for communicating on WP talk pages that are widely followed by experienced editors, bcz they make it more feasible (less laborious) to follow the development of the corresponding articles' content. I find most of these conventions somewhat neglected on this talk page, and am undertaking some cleanup, in the course of checking to see if some of my impulses toward the accompanying article seem likely to be more helpful than disruptive. I'm not sure how far or fast my cleaning up will go, and beg the indulgence of editors, whether new or more experienced with the article than i, since the long-term clarity of the talk page will profit from some changes that may be at least temporarily annoying. If there are others who have concerns about the kind of "talk fixes" (edits that remedy changes that tend to obscure the record of the "talk" on this page) that i'll be making, let's discuss those in this section, and not have anything as silly as an edit-war about the content of the talk page (as opposed to the more typical conflicts about what ultimately matters, the content of the article).
-- Jerzy• t 06:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

   So far, i moved a block of sections (which AFAIK-so-far may be in chrono order within the block) from the beginning to just before this section. I'll be retrofitting annotations to repair the undated (or for that matter, unsigned) ones, so the data for checking their positioning is at hand.
-- Jerzy• t 07:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

   Stepping thru the edit history i've seen (in addition to the sigs and timestamps that i've been adding to unsigned contribs) several sections that have been removed. Some of them have little or no merit, but there is no clearcut vandalism, and pretty much of a continuum from empty fanboyish enthusiasm on up. Archiving is clearly called for in the case of some removed sections -- can these be from before we had well-defined archiving procedures? -- and enough archive-worthy stuff was just cut out that i expect to restore all the removed material and propose relying on the archiving process as the means of reducing clutter to a comfortable level.
-- Jerzy• t 09:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

In particular, in the 1970s there were several test launches of the V-2 rocket, some of which reached altitudes well over 100,000,000 km. This looks like vandalism to me. Should probably read "1940s" and "well over 100km". Does anybody have more information about this? Otherwise I propose making those changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.26.5 ( talk) 14:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The article lede sentence is: "A spacecraft is a vehicle or machine designed to fly in outer space."

This would imply that some upper stages (specifically, those final/terminal upper stages that not only accelerate their payloads to orbit but are designed to, afterwards, "fly in space" for sufficient duration to make more in-space maneuvers like orbital delta-V trajectory changes or to subsequently force a deorbit are also spacecraft.

But is this correct? I don't think this is usually how the term (spacecraft) is used; but I might be wrong.

• So, are upper stages "spacecraft" if they "fly in space" — as the article is currently?
• Or should we improve the article by making the distinction more clear?

Other thoughts? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 15:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Including Taiwan as amongst the list of *nations* with space capabilities is misleading. Not about space exploration and development, but about the political status of Taiwan.

Here are a few things to consider: 1) Taiwan is the contemporary name of an island (landmass), that was formerly called Formosa. The government that exercises control over Taiwan is named the Republic of China. 2) The Republic of China, based in Taipei, in its own legal constitution, considers itself as the sovereign over the entirety of China (including both the mainland and Taiwan island). Similarly, the People's Republic of China ("mainland China" based in Beijing) agrees that the island of Taiwan and the mainland are all one nation. In addition to the two opposing governments that claim the same area of mainland + island(s), more than 170 of the world's 193 nations recognize "One China" 3) The Republic of China was literally removed from the United Nations decades ago, as the world came to consensus around "One China"

I understand that this page is about the human quest for space. I believe that a simple edit to change "nation" to the word "government" will be a proper edit. It will not discount in any way the efforts and successes of the scientists, engineers, and taikonauts from Taiwan. As currently written, the word "nation" undeniably implies very specific and commonly understood implications regarding legitimate political sovereignty. Which is a distraction from the purpose of this page. 2601:5C4:200:5C40:1C86:C6A0:6DC5:59D ( talk) 11:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply

As seen on Talk:Taiwan, consensus is to refer to it as a country. Further,

changing to government excludes the many non–governmental operators of spacecraft. Garuda28 ( talk) 14:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply

regarding Talk:Taiwan, apparent consensus is subjective; and their "consensus" is irrelevant to this page. The United Nations, as well as over 170 nations individually, do not recognize the island of Taiwan as among their peers. Additionally "country" and "nation" are separate words, with similar but distinct definitions.

did you not read the sentence, in which my edit was reverted (by you?)? it is an explicit list of governmental programs. SpaceX isn't included, but NASA is. SpaceX or Lockheed Martin or whoever participates in NASA launches but NASA is included in that sentence precisely because it is a governmental program; and SpaceX is not included precisely because it isn't a governmental program, regardless of its participation in American spacefaring or NASA launches.

"Governmental" is at least as accurate (I suggest you read the sentence). "National" has obvious implications to an on-going political dispute, and I assert is an irrelevant distinction which you need to justify before reverting the edit again. An apparent consensus on a separate wikipedia talk page about an entirely different word (country vs nation vs government) is not going to cut it, especially when each and every listed space program in the sentence in question is a governmental space program. and when the world body of nations (the United Nations) recognizes one nation of China, and as Taipei and Beijing as both part of that one nation.

to make it abundantly clear:

1) what relevance does "country" being the apparent consensus on Talk:Taiwan have to the question of whether "governmental" or "national" is the better description of the listed space programs?

2) what non-governmental space program is listed in the sentence?

clearly, the edit I made is proper. because it is at least equally as accurate (i believe it is more accurate, but that doesn't matter because I don't seek to exclude the Taiwanese references). Moreover "governmental" does not introduce implications from an on-going political dispute. 2601:5C4:200:5C40:1C86:C6A0:6DC5:59D ( talk) 21:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Taiwan is a country/nation (the name of their space agency is the National Space Organization). This is established consensus on Wikipedia, which is not required to self censor. Regardless, this change does not appear to have positive benefit.

Regardless, do not continue to edit war. Instead try to achieve a consensus here. Persisting will likely get you blocked. Garuda28 ( talk) 01:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• There is an article page on spacecraft systems, which is called Astrionics. There should be a Main hatnote pointing to this. This section should be written in summary form based on the structure of the Astrionics page.
• Spacecraft subsystems comprise the spacecraft's bus and may include... Should say satellite bus. Also, subsystems are mounted in the bus, do not "comprise" the bus:

A spacecraft bus is the main body and structural component of a spacecraft, in which the payload and all scientific instruments are held.

• GNC is ambiguous and needs to be spelled out and Wikilinked (it doesn't mean "General Nutrition Centers"). JustinTime55 ( talk) 17:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

As of this writing, this article features two images of spacecraft followed by the {{Spaceflight sidebar}}. That's a problem, because the latter currently includes the same Shuttle image already included above. I am however hesitant to just single-handedly delete that File:Space Shuttle Columbia launching.jpg picture from this article, because that would trash the information in the caption as well. Thoughts? — ReadOnlyAccount ( talk) 06:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply